Peixoto Lima Siqueira v. Wesling et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
PABLO PEIXOTO LIMA SIQUEIRA,
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID WESLING,
Field Office
Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, Boston Field Office,
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM,
Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; PAMELA BONDI,
U.S. Attorney General; MICHAEL
NESSINGER,
Warden of the Wyatt
Detention Facility; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; EXECUTIVE OFFICE
FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 26-cv-096-JJM-AEM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR., United States District Court Chief Judge.
Before the Court is Pablo Peixoto Lima Siqueira’s Emergency Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order in which he seeks to prevent his re-detention by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). ECF No. 8. Because the Court finds
that Mr. Lima Siqueira is not “in custody” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §
2241(c)(3), the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JJM-AEM Document 10 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mr. Lima Siqueira is a native of Brazil, who arrived in the United States on or
about November 3, 2021. ECF No. 1 at 8. Finding that he had entered the country
without being lawfully admitted, agents of the U.S. Border Patrol (“USBP”) arrested
Mr. Lima Siqueira and transferred him to ICE custody. ECF No. 1-2 at 3. After being
detained for about a month, ICE officials released Mr. Lima Siqueira on or about
December 4, 2021 on an Order of Release on Recognizance. 1
Id. He eventually moved
to the State of Connecticut. ECF No. 1 at 1.
On March 28, 2025, officers from the Bridgeport Police Department arrested
Mr. Lima Siqueira on charges of disorderly conduct and strangulation/suffocation in
the second degree. 	ECF No. 1-2 at 2-3. 	On August 13, 2025, Mr. Lima Siqueira
appeared in Connecticut state court for a hearing on the criminal charges lodged
against him.2 	ECF No. 1 at 1. 	After the hearing, ICE officers arrested Mr. Lima
Siqueira and transferred him to the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility in Central
Falls, Rhode Island, where he remained detained for over five months.
Id. at 2.
1 An Order of Release on Recognizance is issued by ICE pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1226. See U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Order 	of 	Release 	on 	Recognizance,
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention/checkin/I_220A_OREC.pdf (displaying a sample
order). The order permits a noncitizen detainee to be released from custody provided
that they comply with certain conditions set by ICE.
Id.
2 	These 	charges 	were 	due 	to 	be 	dismissed 	pursuant 	to 	a 	Connecticut
diversionary program called the Family Violence Education Program. 	ECF No. 1-4
at 1. 	As part of the program, Mr. Lima Siqueira was required to attend scheduled
intakes, but he was unable to attend them following his arrest and subsequent
detention by ICE.
Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JJM-AEM Document 10 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
While in ICE custody, Mr. Lima Siqueira filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in which he challenged the legality of his detention.
Id. at 10-14. On February
18, 2026, the Court granted Mr. Lima Siqueira’s petition and ordered that the
Government immediately release him from detention and provide him with a bond
hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”).
See Text Order (Feb. 18, 2026).
Mr. Lima Siqueira was released from ICE custody that same day, and he
remains at liberty today. 	ECF No. 8 at 2. 	The Chelmsford Immigration Court
subsequently held a bond hearing for Mr. Lima Siqueira on February 25, 2026.
	Id.;
ECF No. 7 at 1. 	The IJ denied bond, finding that Mr. Lima Siqueira presented a
danger 	to 	the 	community 	by 	clear 	and 	convincing 	evidence 	and 	that, 	in 	the
alternative, he posed a flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence.3 ECF No. 8-2
at 1 (displaying IJ’s order).
Curiously, however, ICE officials did not take Mr. Lima Siqueira back into
custody following the bond hearing. ECF No. 8 at 2. Nor does the record suggest that
ICE placed any monitoring devices or conditions of release on Mr. Lima Siqueira.
Seeking to prevent his re-detention at the hands of ICE, Mr. Lima Siqueira
now submits the present Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
ECF No. 8 at 1-2, 6.
3 In making these findings, the IJ relied exclusively on the “strangulation
allegations” made in Mr. Lima Siqueira’s arrest report. ECF No. 8 at 3.
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JJM-AEM Document 10 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
II. 	DISCUSSION
This discussion begins and ends with jurisdiction—and this Court’s lack
thereof. 	Federal courts are of course courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only
the power granted to them by the Constitution or by statute.
Corrigan v. Bos. Univ.,
98 F.4th 346, 356 (1st Cir. 2024) (citing
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).
28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides that federal courts may grant habeas relief to
individuals who are “
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (emphasis added). 	In the past, the
Supreme Court has “very liberally construed” the “in custody” requirement.
Maleng
v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989);
see also Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 291 (1969);
Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 65 (1968).
As 	the 	Court 	has 	explained, 	“custody” 	extends 	beyond 	mere 	physical
incarceration.
	See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 239 (1963) (“[I]n the United
States the use of habeas corpus has not been restricted to situations in which the
applicant is in actual, physical custody.”). 	Instead, the habeas petitioner must “be
subject to ‘restraints not shared by the public generally.’”
	Tinder v. Paula, 725 F.2d
801, 803 (1st Cir. 1984) (quoting
Jones, 371 U.S. at 240). At the very least, in order
to 	grant 	the 	petition, 	“there 	must 	be 	some 	type 	of 	continuing 	governmental
supervision over the person.”
Id. (citing
Spring v. Caldwell, 692 F.2d 994, 997-98 (5th
Cir. 1982)).
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JJM-AEM Document 10 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
In the immigration context, courts have found the “in custody” requirement to
be met where, even though a noncitizen has been released from ICE’s physical
custody, 	the 	agency 	has 	nevertheless 	imposed 	monitoring 	measures 	or 	other
conditions of release on the noncitizen.4
	See, e.g.,
Orellana Juarez v. Moniz, 788 F.
Supp. 3d 61, 67-68 (D. Mass. 2025);
Hogarth v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-09472-SPG-
MAR, 2025 WL 3211461, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2025);
Khabazha v. U.S. Immigr.
& Customs Enf’t, No. 25-cv-5279 (JMF), 2025 WL 3281514, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25,
2025);
A.B.D. v. Wamsley, No. 6:25-cv-02014-AA, 2026 WL 178306, at *8 (D. Or. Jan.
22, 2026).
In the present case, though he was detained for over five months, ICE has
released Mr. Lima Siqueira as of February 18, 2026. 5 	ECF No. 8 at 2. 	Mr. Lima
Siqueira remains at liberty today, and ICE has not—as far as the Court is aware—
imposed any sort of monitoring measures or other conditions of release on him.
4 Conditions of release can include but are not limited to: (1) requiring the
noncitizen to wear a GPS ankle monitor; (2) requiring the noncitizen to report for
regular check-ins with ICE; (3) allowing ICE to enter the noncitizen's residence for
home 	visits; 	(4) 	imposing 	a 	curfew 	on 	the 	noncitizen; 	and 	(5) 	geographically
restricting where the noncitizen can travel.
	See Orellana Juarez v. Moniz, 788 F.
Supp. 3d 61, 67-68 (D. Mass. 2025);
see also Ali v. Napolitano, No. 12-cv-11384, 2013
WL 3929788, at *4 (D. Mass. July 26, 2013).
5 To be sure, “[c]ustody is determined from the date that a habeas petition is
first filed.”
Tinder, 725 F.2d at 803 (citing
Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238-40
(1968);
Marchand v. Dir., U.S. Prob. Off., 421 F.2d 331, 332 n.1 (1st Cir. 1970)).
However, this does not change the fact that the petitioner must be subject to some
sort of restriction on their liberty.
	Id. at 804 (“Penalties that do not impose … a
restraint or the imminent threat of such a restraint do not meet the custody
requirement of the habeas statute.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JJM-AEM Document 10 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Of 	course, 	should 	ICE 	take 	him 	back 	into 	custody 	or 	place 	any 	other
restrictions on his liberty, then Mr. Lima Siqueira is free to pursue appropriate relief
in this Court. 	For now, however, the Court is constrained in the relief it can grant
Mr. Lima Siqueira.
	See España v. Nessinger, No. 26-cv-014-JJM-PAS, 2026 WL
507403, at *2 (D.R.I. Feb. 23, 2026).
III. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Lima Siqueira’s Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order without prejudice. ECF No. 8.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
March 2, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00096-JJM-AEM Document 10 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>